1. society
2. work
3. unemployment

APPENDIX E
Question 7: One of the key purposes of the proposed extension is to enable new development in
southeast London. It is unlikely the scheme can happen without this new development. Do you
support the proposed extension on this basis?
Question 8: Please use this space for any further views / comments on the above question
IN SUPPORT (Yes)
Theme code
Location of development
Number of
comments
Comment description
General comments on locations of development
There is already lots of development in southeast London / The area is
already densely populated.
208
Support development as long as it is on brownfield sites.
71
Oppose development on green space / flood plain / areas of natural beauty.
61
There is lots of suitable land for development.
51
Green spaces should be protected.
12
As long as it is not taking green belt
11
There is a need to better utilise the space in southeast London.
10
New development is welcome to replace old housing stock.
10
Hard to see how many buildings can be fitted into the area
8
New development should be on brownfield sites around stations.
5
Develop alongside stations to improve access to stations
5
The area would make an excellent commuter hub due to its proximity to
Canary Wharf / the City / Stratford.
4
There is abandoned land / shops that will attract investment.
3
Should space development out physically, and over time.
Old Kent Road needs transport investment for development to become
viable.
2
I do not want to see compulsory purchase of houses / property
2
Not enough brownfield land available
1
I support development elsewhere in London.
1
2
Locations stated as possible development areas
Old Kent Road
122
Lewisham
104
Catford
84
Camberwell
58
Peckham High Street
34
Bromley
29
New Cross
23
Walworth / Walworth Road
19
Lower Sydenham
15
Beckenham
11
Peckham Rye
10
Hayes
7
Southwark
6
1
Ladywell
6
Elephant & Castle
5
Deptford
5
Streatham
4
Bermondsey
4
Eltham
4
Bellingham
2
Dulwich
2
Peckham
2
Bell Green
1
Pool & Beck
1
Rivers Ravensbourne
1
West Wickham
1
Brockley
1
South East
1
Forest Hill
1
Clock House
1
Downham
1
Surrey Quays
1
St John’s
1
Bexley
1
South of Southampton Way
1
Orpington
1
Blackheath / Charlton
1
Old Oak
1
Norwood
1
Albany Road
1
Norbury
1
Sutton
1
Purley
1
TOTAL
1044
General comments
Support the development
Support new development.
242
Development is inevitable.
62
Only support new development if the extension goes ahead.
32
Development required to match growing population
9
There needs to be investment in transport in addition to the extension to
support extensive new development.
6
Support development if road and walkways are improved
1
Support the extension
Transport investment is necessary for new development.
192
The extension is needed regardless of new development / there is already
the demand for the extension.
99
The extension will improve access to central London.
59
Do the extension as soon as possible / Support the extension
55
2
The extension will improve accessibility to the rest of London.
53
The extension shouldn’t be based on new development; the extension will
drive new development anyway.
47
Transport improvements should not lag behind new development.
47
The extension will encourage more people to live in southeast London.
36
The extension will encourage new development.
7
Support replacement of National Rail with Underground
2
To provide adequate access to new development, more stations are
required along the route than are currently proposed.
1
TOTAL
Type of development
950
General comments on type of development
Need well designed developments.
88
There needs to be investment in other infrastructure (e.g.. Schools,
healthcare) to support the new development.
60
New development should include culture / open spaces / local shops /
markets / cafes / restaurants
54
Development should be mindful of the surrounding areas.
New development should be sympathetic to surroundings in terms of scale,
style and content.
40
Oppose high rise development.
29
Development should provide local facilities for existing residents.
25
New development should be high density.
23
Developments should be mixed use to minimise travel by residents.
20
Need updated housing to attract more young professionals.
16
Development should not be blanket approved.
Impose high environmental building standards and local energy /
generation
8
Development should provide infrastructure / schools / healthcare.
4
New developments are more sustainable / environmentally friendly
3
Build what is in the interest of local people
3
There should be town centre regeneration along the route.
2
There is a need for more development, but only if it is owner-occupied.
2
Beautiful old buildings are falling into ruin and need to be taken care of
2
There needs to be a better balance between apartments and houses.
As long as the developments are built in a manner so as to not to preclude
more capacity
1
New towns need to be created
1
New development must be built to be sustainable.
1
36
6
1
Housing
Large proportion of affordable / social housing is required.
163
New development is necessary given the pressure on the housing stock and
the increasing property prices in London.
108
New development must meet local needs for social housing.
New development should take into account the income level of the people
living there.
47
House prices in southeast London are increasing rapidly.
30
Provision of housing for people already living in the area.
18
Provision should be made for first time buyers.
15
Property should be made available to residents before overseas investors.
12
3
46
Economy and
regeneration
Support development but new house prices should be capped.
2
As long as the new housing is focused on areas with existing infrastructure
2
If “new development” means more council estates then I disapprove of this
2
It must include family homes
2
Should be lower council tax bands for dwellings with not off street parking
1
The area needs more housing / housing developments.
1
TOTAL
874
Development is needed to regenerate southeast London.
269
Regeneration in southeast London is overdue / needed
197
New development will create new jobs and bring much needed investment.
The extension will open up further opportunities to expand existing
commercial operations.
95
Current lack of access chokes the growth prospects of the region.
39
The area needs development and regeneration.
27
New development needs to support existing local businesses.
New development will encourage businesses to move to the area / benefit
existing businsses.
20
New development should support existing local businesses
11
Camberwell needs regeneration / overdue
6
TOTAL
Public transport and
congestion
50
15
729
Current issues
Underground provision is needed to reduce congestion for all modes.
65
southeast London doesn’t feel connected to the rest of London.
22
Extension is needed to relieve congestion on existing public transport.
22
southeast London suffers from a lack of investment in transport.
19
southeast train network / service is inadequate
15
Extension would reduce traffic.
6
Buses are very crowded.
6
The southeast is poorly served by existing public transport.
5
Concerned about the reduction in capacity by the replacement of the Hayes
line with Underground.
5
Need to make streets safer
The current road network would certainly not support any significant
development in the area
4
Lack of river crossings East of Tower Bridge
2
The existing public transport system is oversaturated.
2
Current trains don’t run late enough
1
3
Other transport improvements
There should be extensive redevelopment of other transport infrastructure
(roads / rail / footpaths / buses) in addition to the extension.
16
Road infrastructure will need to follow suit
7
Need more trains in the meantime
3
The South Circular road should be improved.
3
Existing public transport needs more capacity
2
DLR to Catford
The Bromley extension would offer the most benefits in terms of relieving
congestion.
2
4
2
Support for the extension of Boris Bikes.
2
Housing should have secure cycle parking
2
Need safe cycle lanes
2
More trains are needed on the Bakerloo line.
There is a need for a bus route from southeast Bermondsey to London
Bridge
1
Increase the amount of ticket barriers
1
Extend the Northern line.
1
TOTAL
1
222
Route
Stations mentioned for route
Camberwell
22
Peckham Rye
14
Bromley town centre
13
Old Kent Road
10
Greenwich
8
Lewisham
8
Hayes
6
Hither Green
5
Catford
5
Streatham
5
Croydon
4
Denmark Hill
4
East Dulwich
3
Woolwich
3
Forest Hill
2
Chislehurst
2
Beckelham Junction
2
Elmstead Woods
2
Orpington
2
New Cross
2
Bexley Heath / Dartford
2
Beckenham
2
Interchange at New Cross Gate
1
South Quay
1
Bricklayers Arms Roundabout
1
Dunton Road for Burgess Park
1
Surrey Quays
1
Sydenham
1
Brockley
1
Loughborough Junction
1
Thamesmead
1
Herne Hill
1
Norwood Junction
1
Crystal Palace
1
Ebsfleet International
1
5
St Johns
1
City Hall (or Butlers Wharf)
1
Nunhead
1
Suggestions for the Bakerloo extension
Financing the extension
Route up to Lewisham only
4
Route should go beyond Lewisham
3
Support both routes to be built together
3
Other routes should be targeted for the extension.
2
Prefer light railway
2
Support for option 1a
2
Should join up to Victoria line at Brixton
2
Smaller stations along the route please
2
Connection should be made to New Cross Gate London.
2
Needs to go further into Kent
2
Support for extension option 1b.
1
Only support the extension if it goes through Greenwich.
Extension to Lewisham should be completed before the rest of the
extension.
1
Extension is necessary for Beckenham Junction.
1
Should use old link into Bromley North
1
Operate into Cannon Street
1
Mainline from Bromley North needs to go direct
1
Camberwell part of the line to go via Queens Road Peckham
Direct south, we should start from closer to the direct south before going to
the east.
1
1
SW16 is also in the process of regeneration. It would also benefit from a
21st century transport system.
1
Consider a link to Streatham via the Victoria line from Brixton
1
TOTAL
177
It makes sense to seek private funding for public transport developments.
111
New development capital is vital in southeast London.
19
Private funding strengthens the argument for the project.
11
Understandable that this has to be funded by new development.
6
Need to look at broader mechanisms for recovering proceeds of growth
6
The development should be funded by a land value tax
Couldn’t the mayoral CIL also be used in part to fund the extension in the
same way as Crossrail?
Value capture from property development along the route should help fund
the extension.
4
Development should also be considered in context of funding other
improvements in South East London
Impact on existing
residents
1
3
1
1
TOTAL
162
Development should benefit existing residents.
59
New development should respect the existing community.
There should be consultation with existing residents about new
development.
New development / regeneration will be good for local people and the
community.
39
Will improve southeast London for existing residents.
3
6
38
20
Living in a nicer area is beneficial for mental health.
Many more trains will mean more noise
Further information
required
1
TOTAL
162
More information is required about the development.
92
More information is required about the location of new development.
12
Are there new trains coming for the Bakerloo line?
Would road infrastructure be introduced to cope with the new
developments to the area?
2
Will these new developments already built before the tube extension
agreement also be asked to contribute?
Other
2
1
1
TOTAL
108
Do not want route dictated by private developers.
10
Disruption should be kept to a minimum
4
Concerned about disruption during construction
4
This will be more accessible than the train for disabled people
2
Thorough stakeholder evaluation required
Would like to see the reopening of Peckham Rye lido as a planning
condition.
2
Adequate parking should be provided for the new development.
1
Camberwell green / Camberwell Road and Walworth road shops all need
modernisation and should be maintained by owners
1
It would bolster those considering moving to Kent
1
Development in line with Southwark development plans
1
TOTAL
27
‘YES' TOTAL
1
4,455
NEUTRAL (Maybe)
Theme code
General comments
Number of
comments
Comment description
Comments about the development
The development is needed / support the development in general
49
Support for the development depends on type / location of development
Support for the development depends on environmental impact /
sustainability
29
Development is to be expected as a result of the extension
12
Development is already ongoing in southeast London
New development should only happen with full consultation and support of
the local community
9
Support for the development if suitable for middle to low income
6
Support for the development only if necessary
5
Support development to encourage new jobs and business
5
Opposed to the development in principle
Support development in southeast London in order to modernise /
regenerate the area.
3
Support development within reason
2
Support the development if appropriately sized
2
7
17
8
2
Support for the development depends on impact on the economy
2
Support Development regardless of extension
1
Support depends on what the development looks like
1
Development should benefit the existing deprived residents of South East
London rather than enterprise
Support on the basis councils commit to releasing land and granting
planning permission
Development should be in areas of poor connectivity
1
1
1
Comments about the extension
Support the extension / infrastructure is needed in the area
84
The extension should proceed regardless of new development / better
transport infrastructure is needed regardless of new development
63
The extension is required to allow the development / will bring
development / growth / regeneration
The extension / solving transport issues should be prioritised ahead of
development
No point in improving transport if the development uses increased capacity
TOTAL
21
5
2
331
Location of development
Areas opposed for development
Green space / green belt / open spaces should not be used for development
/ only brownfield is acceptable
53
Bromley
5
Hayes is a conservative area
5
Further out / established / prosperous residential areas do not need to be
regenerated or have new development.
2
Old Kent Road
Forest Hill / Sydenham / Camberwell / Peckham / Beckenham / West
Wickham / Catford / Bellingham
2
Peckham Rye
1
2
General Comments
Southeast London is already very developed / Housing density along Hayes
line is already quite high / There isn’t room for more development
46
There is significant demand for new development
6
Do not build in Lewisham
6
Lewisham has already been developed
5
It is a deprived area that has potential for growth / development
2
The area traditionally has a high proportion of affordable and social housing.
1
Build along the route
1
Demand for residential development for KCH / Institute of Psychiatry staff
1
Locations stated as possible development areas
Camberwell
61
Peckham Rye
26
Peckham
22
Old Kent Road
9
Lewisham
7
Catford
3
Streatham
3
Walworth
3
8
Type of development
Rye Lane
3
Hayes
2
West Wickham
2
Beckenham
2
Bromley
2
Development should be located close to the new stations.
1
There is only room for development beyond Lewisham.
1
Develop the run down areas
1
New Cross
1
Dulwich
1
Denmark Hill
1
Ladywell
1
Support development outside of London
1
TOTAL
291
New development must prioritise social / affordable housing
66
Development should be well designed / carefully planned / responsible / not
an eyesore / in line with existing architecture / sensitive
28
Oppose high rise development
27
Developments should not just be accessible to higher incomes / oppose
construction of high end properties
Regeneration of derelict buildings and neglected high streets / empty
commercial spaces
New development must respect the existing urban fabric and be appropriate
for the setting.
New development must provide new schools / healthcare.
Development should be extending or enhancing existing developments /
Future development in this area should focus on refurbishing existing assets
Support new development for existing communities, not high end
developments.
15
14
14
13
11
11
Support building of leisure facilities
7
More small family houses should be built instead of flats / oppose small flats
7
Support building public services / facilities
7
New development should be primarily residential / Preference for housing
rather than commercial development
6
Would like shops to be built / restaurants
6
Do not support private developments built for profit
6
Support high quality development
6
Support low density housing building built
4
Support offices being built / Employment development
4
Development should be sustainable
2
Oppose offices being built
2
Oppose new-build homes
1
Do not just want to cater for 'affordable housing' market. Want southeast
London to be a destination for all types of people.
1
Any development would need to be carefully considered
1
Less buy to let and more buy to live
1
Designed around pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, not car use.
1
Developments should be accessible to the tube
1
9
Further information
required
Impact on existing
residents
Public transport and
congestion
Businesses will not move to the area
1
Oppose construction of new supermarkets
1
Support high rise development
1
Malls and shops should be integrated around the station
1
TOTAL
266
Need more information about the type / location of new development
162
Where will the development be?
The implications of what such development will mean is not clear / impact on
the train network
15
Unsure of what the question means
10
It will depend on how many?
8
Depends on how it effects other facilities i.e. leisure space
2
Need to understand the extent of disruption
2
Will the new development involve pushing out the existing community?
2
Where will the tunnelling be?
1
I thought the Thameslink project when finished in 2018 would provide extra
capacity at London Bridge etc
1
Need to understand the environmental impact.
1
Need to understand the impact on the economy.
1
Consideration given to noise levels from train frequency increase.
1
What happens if developers negotiate out of paying for the extension?
1
Does this new development include developments that are in progress?
1
Who will pay for capital expenditure?
1
Can funds not be obtained from elsewhere, e.g. by scrapping the "New Bus
for London", or from Network Rail?
1
11
TOTAL
221
Support as long as development benefits all existing residents / local
community / Improve quality of life
39
Existing residents should not be displaced.
29
Concern over increasing house / rent prices
22
Current residents should be prioritised over future ones / existing
communities justify the extension / local needs justify the extension
20
Concern about increased development putting pressure on other aspects of
the infrastructure e.g.. Sewerage, schools, hospitals, GPS etc.
14
Concerns over losing character of the neighbourhood / gentrification
12
Should maintain the historic fabric of the local communities
11
Increase the levels of accessibility into London
11
Decrease pollution.
2
Improve facilities for existing residents
2
Concerns about criminals travelling to the area
1
New development should not increase overcrowding.
1
Existing communities in southeast London that are suffering with poor
transport links should be given consideration first.
1
TOTAL
165
Current issues
Peak transport in southeast London is already at capacity / extension is
already needed
43
10
Transport links are missing in the area / southeast London has fewer
transport options than other areas of London
21
Congestion in the area is a big issue
Significant new development will put a greater strain on the transport
network.
18
The extension will not resolve the existing inadequate transport facilities.
Support as long as other methods of transport are considered / additional
train capacity
5
14
4
Other transport solutions
Route
Economy, regeneration
and the environment
Other tube / DLR lines should be extended too.
4
Needs to be investment in cycle infrastructure
3
Additional trains / carriages required on existing lines
2
TOTAL
114
Camberwell
Why not open up Camberwell train station again and have southern rail
services stop there.
18
Peckham / Peckham Rye
Provide interchanges at Catford / Bromley / Peckham / Denmark Hill to
reduce crowding.
15
Support extension as far as Lewisham (at least).
8
Support proposal in principle but do not agree with the proposed route.
8
Support Option 1b
6
The tube should run through Catford
4
Support both 1a and 1b
4
Streatham
3
Support Option 1a
3
Camberwell and Bromley
2
Should be an additional branch joining at New Cross Gate.
2
Suggested route already has sufficient public transport
2
Only support the extension up to Beckenham
1
Brockley
1
Walworth
1
New Cross
1
It needs to be understood what the current travel patterns are.
1
The route should not run through Catford
1
The route should go to Charlton
1
Route to Tulse Hill / Streatham
1
Route should stop at Walworth Road / Burgess Park
1
16
9
TOTAL
109
Concerns over reduction of green space
26
The development should be sensitive to the local area.
9
The extension will help the London economy.
8
Development / extension should benefit local business, not just megacorps
3
Concern about the environmental impact / risk of flooding.
2
The extension would give massive boost to local economy / regeneration
2
Benefits for all of London.
Extension will allow for investment in medical research (Linked to KCH and
Maudsley)
2
11
2
The economy of the area depends on good transport
Financing the extension
Concerns about noise pollution
1
TOTAL
56
Funding should be found from other sources
12
New development should not be the basis for funding this extension / The
extension should be funded by other means
10
Understand that private finance is needed to build the extension.
7
Public money should be used to fund the extension / public money should be
used as the rest of London will benefit
Concern that there are not enough opportunities for development to fund the
extension.
Other
1
4
4
It is a risk to fund infrastructure developments by speculative development,
which rely on the infrastructure improvements.
3
TfL should focus on other routes or extensions if there is not enough funding
/ money would be better spent elsewhere
2
Surcharges on house sales in the area to raise funding
1
Using funding from private developers could lead to poor decisions
1
Private Public Partnership
1
the actual costs to companies and individuals is higher
1
Should increase congestion charge to cover the funding shortfall.
Network Rail should own the land for development to collect the benefits
from it
1
1
Elephant & Castle Heygate redevelopment should be levied to support the
extension as it will benefit from it
1
If development is coincident with or subsequent to a new railway then we
need legal mechanisms to obtain some of the development gain / increase in
land values / increased tax receipts.
1
TOTAL
Would be great for the hospital links / Access to KCH is an important
consideration
50
Extension will connect North and South London
2
What a shame the railways were privatised; imagine the vision of joined up
networks of train and tube extending nationwide seamlessly, without vested
interests and dependence on transitory global corporations.....
1
15
Unsure of the accuracy of information in the consultation documents.
The proposed developments should have extensive consultation with the
community.
Introduction of Overground to south east London has resulted in many new
developments
1
TOTAL
21
‘MAYBE' TOTAL
1
1
1,624
AGAINST (No)
Theme code
General comments
Number of
comments
Comment description
Support the extension regardless of development.
91
There is already too much development.
20
New development is already happening in southeast London.
18
12
Public transport and
congestion
The extension should be created to serve existing residents / solve existing
problems, not serve new development.
12
Do not want new development in southeast London.
10
I do not want southeast London to change.
10
There is enough demand for the extension without further development.
9
Public transport is already good enough / the area is already well connected.
9
The extension should not be dependent on development.
7
Once Crossrail and Thameslink schemes are complete, development in
southeast London will be more attractive.
3
New development will happen anyway as South London is very attractive.
2
The proposal will not enable new development.
2
There is not enough existing infrastructure to support new development.
2
Development would have a greater impact in New Cross Gate London.
2
Whether there is the Underground or not will not have an impact on the rate
at which London develops.
2
The route predominantly uses an existing line, therefore any development
will just use the existing network.
2
Key attraction of the area is that it is not over developed.
2
Oppose the extension.
2
It shouldn’t only be because of development prospects that an area be given
access to the Underground network.
1
Further development in London is counterproductive.
1
It will mean losing more housing in the area to accommodate business
development; we haven’t got enough houses as it is.
1
The down side is un-aesthetic new buildings, the increase in population
density and rising house prices.
1
The extension will bring the new development.
1
Development shouldn’t be at the expense of the poor.
South “Central” has been ignored whilst suffering the same or worse levels of
social deprivation.
1
It will heighten development- but not aid it.
1
southeast London is already too expensive.
1
The developers should not dictate where the extension goes.
1
The area has survived so far without the Underground.
1
Support extension if it improves the existing service.
1
The extension will reduce travel times.
1
1
TOTAL
southeast London is already too overcrowded. / Need to avoid creating more
overcrowding.
Further development will increase the pressure on a transport system that is
already struggling.
218
southeast London has been overlooked in terms of transport for too long.
Taking over the Hayes branch line restricts access for alternative routes in and
out of London / removes a direct service to London Bridge / Cannon Street /
Charing Cross / Waterloo.
The extension is needed to relieve congestion on the existing transport
network.
4
Support any means of reducing congestion on the roads.
4
The scale of new development means that the extension will run at full
capacity even with the increased services.
3
13
52
5
4
4
southeast London requires the Underground network as it is the only part of
London that doesn't have direct access to the existing network.
3
Existing public transport services are overcrowded.
3
The area needs better public transport links.
3
Extend DLR.
There isn’t enough capacity on public transport to cope with increased
development.
3
The perceived gain in capacity will be eliminated by the likely rise in demand
arising from new development.
Route
2
2
Improve Network Rail capacity.
There is a serious discrepancy between transport provision north and south of
the river.
2
The road network is congested.
2
Want to preserve the direct train connection to London Bridge.
Camberwell / Old Kent Road / Walworth have significant traffic and
congestion problems.
2
A whole new Underground line should be built to serve the southeast
2
The area is well served by public transport.
2
New development will increase congestion on the roads.
1
Oppose increase in population.
1
The journey time from the area will be less direct and slower with the
extension which is not appealing to developers.
1
2
2
Extend the tramline between Beckenham and Bromley.
Terminate the Bakerloo at Lewisham and use the money to improve the
Tramlink.
1
Doesn't propose a Jubilee line link to London Bridge - annoying.
1
Just increase the frequency at the stations.
1
Would prefer a better service on the Hayes Line
Having a direct link to the heart of London will take pressure off the
Overground network.
1
1
1
It would be cheaper to expand the Overground line, and connect it to Victoria
line or Northern line.
1
The service on the existing line should be improved instead of an extension.
1
Support if the Victoria line is extended to Streatham and Norwood.
1
Instead of an extension, escalators and lifts should be made available in all
stations to make them accessible to everyone.
1
Use longer trains from Hayes.
1
The need for a train link between Gatwick and Stanstead is greater.
1
Improve the Dartford line.
1
The Dartford Line is at capacity.
1
National Rail train frequency should be increased.
More guards should be available at stations, to help passengers with travel
and ticket enquiries.
1
The area needs the level of transport provision the rest of London has.
1
Privatise all parking spaces
1
1
TOTAL
127
Camberwell
17
The route should serve Streatham / Streatham Hill.
Needs to improve access to King’s College and Maudsley Hospital / Denmark
Hill
11
14
8
Impact on existing
residents
Peckham / Peckham Rye
8
Route needs to go to the South and South West of London
4
Support extension to Lewisham.
3
Support extension route 1b.
2
A new line with an interchange and not an extension would be better
2
East Dulwich
2
Support extension 1a.
2
Bromley North
1
Bromley South
1
Strongly oppose the replacement of the Hayes National Rail line.
1
There are areas that need the extension more than the proposed route.
1
Concern extension beyond Lewisham will remove direct trains.
1
There isn’t anywhere to put sidings.
1
Priority should be given to areas that are densely populated / have services
that need increased connectivity.
1
Oppose extension to Hayes.
1
Support both 1a and 1b.
1
Tulse Hill
1
Norwood Junction
1
Loughborough Junction
1
City Hall / Butler's Wharf
1
TOTAL
The primary concern of new transport projects should be to service the
existing population.
72
New development will displace existing residents.
9
Poor and established communities should not be displaced.
The proposed approach would contribute towards the growing social
inequality.
New development would put pressure on many existing low income
households.
4
There is an existing need, irrespective of new development in the area.
2
The transport connections should be improved for existing residents before
there is additional new development further down the line.
2
The extension will not benefit residents.
2
It would make accessing central London harder for existing residents.
2
Will make house prices even higher
1
New development would disrupt and prejudice the demographic
development that is already going on in southeast London.
1
This is a social need, rather than solely an economic one
1
The extension will change the demographic of the area.
1
Regeneration of the area will increase prices and marginalise the existing
working class population.
1
New development should benefit people as opposed to the economy.
1
New development will reduce the quality of life for existing residents.
1
New council flats may lower the value of existing property
1
Will impact in terms of noise, the mess and the redirection of buses.
1
Local businesses will not profit in fact they will close down.
1
The extension will change the character of the area.
1
15
14
3
2
Well paid commuters will be the only ones who can afford to live in the area.
1
The extension will lead to gentrification.
1
The extension will improve evening and weekend services, giving greater
access to the central London nightlife.
1
Increase in crime rate.
Residents need better transport links to share in any progress / prosperity in
London.
1
Improved connectivity to central London.
1
TOTAL
57
Location of development
1
Areas mentioned for development
Streatham
3
Norwood
1
Norbury
1
Thornton Heath
1
Erith
1
Barnhurst
1
Bellingham
1
Downham
1
Peckham
1
Camberwell
1
General comments
Type of development
Oppose development on green space.
11
There isn't any available space for further development in the area.
9
South London is beautiful because of how green it is.
5
Support development on brownfield land.
4
northwest London needs development.
1
Oppose new development in Beckenham.
1
Areas nearer the centre need development more.
1
Oppose new development in West Wickham / Hayes.
1
New development will destroy the existing semi-rural pleasant environment.
1
TOTAL
46
There is already a severe lack of school places.
8
New development will add additional pressure on local services.
6
Against high density developments
3
The area is currently underserved in terms of schools and doctors.
3
Oppose high-end development for overseas investors.
2
Development must include measures to include social housing.
2
If new housing is built, services need to be built first.
2
There should be a change from office / commercial land use to residential.
1
Oppose private housing.
1
Development should be respectful to the local environment.
1
Development in southeast London should be on a local basis.
The enormous cost of the extension means that any development will be
high-end.
1
Oppose construction of chain stores / supermarkets / big businesses.
1
More social housing should be built
1
16
1
Financing the extension
Can we not restore existing properties
1
Existing housing should be preserved.
Measures should be put in place to ensure house prices do not inflate
unfairly.
1
Due consideration should be given to the construction of amenities and
schools to accommodate the influx from new development.
1
The current significant development is having a negative impact on the area's
infrastructure and services.
1
Housing demand will never be satisfied if we keep building more houses, as
they just generate increased demand.
1
TOTAL
39
Transport projects should not be reliant on developer funding.
12
The extension should be funded using public money.
Developer contributions should not determine the route or whether a project
goes ahead.
If the development does not materialise bonds could be issued to fund the
project
southeast London has been subsidising the Underground across the rest of
London for a long time.
6
The extension should be funded by a steep taxation on the financial services
industry and the super-rich.
A mixture of private and public funds should be used for the extension.
Areas affected by the extension will benefit and therefore should contribute
through Council Tax.
TfL / GLA have a duty to continue their investment in public transport in
London.
The extension will not only benefit new developments so it is unfair for
developers to fully fund the scheme.
Could be part funded by some form of land tax
Need to invest in infrastructure, rather than development, to generate capital
gain.
The extension requires public / government funding, not development
funding.
Further information
required
Other
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
It is a mistake to look to development for funding, especially in the current
volatile housing market.
1
The development should be funded irrespective of development.
1
This is an expensive project that adds no value to public transport.
1
TOTAL
37
The definition of development is unclear.
10
On locations of new development.
3
On type of new development.
3
Evidence that large scale development is required along the Hayes line.
1
Funding sources.
1
TOTAL
18
The question is weighted towards support for Old Kent Road routing.
4
I don’t accept that the population increase figures are correct.
1
The question is a red herring – the land will be developed anyway and will be
too expensive for normal people.
1
The question contradicts itself.
Previous technology meant that southeast London didn't have a Underground
line, but now technology has improved there is no reason for there not to be
a line.
17
1
1
The map showing population growth shows that this will be predominantly in
east and NE London, not the southeast, which undermines the premise of the
extension.
1
The construction period would significantly disrupt services for years.
Only benefits people working on Bakerloo line. Ignores those who work in the
City of London.
There are a number of factors which prevent the development of an area
other than transport.
1
Now stations could also act as development attractions.
1
TfL are incompetent.
1
House prices in the area are similar to those in Crofton Park.
1
TOTAL
15
‘NO' TOTAL
629
1
1
DON'T KNOW
Theme code
Further information
required
General comments
Number of
comments
Comment description
Depends on what the new development is.
Not given enough information about the development to answer the
question.
46
Depends on where the new development is.
13
Want more information about specific proposals before commenting.
10
Definition of development.
8
Need more information on funding sources.
2
What would be the impact on the local community?
1
TOTAL
94
The extension should happen regardless of new development.
Development is already happening all over southeast London. / southeast
London is developing rapidly.
The line should be built in response to existing demand, not future
development.
Need development to support the extension, need the extension to support
the development.
9
Support the development.
2
The area does not have the transport links to be at the ‘London standard’
2
The extension will not benefit commuters.
2
Support depends on the location / type of development.
1
There is already demand for the extension without futher development.
1
New development will come once the extension is built.
1
In Lewisham, the provision of new services has not kept up with the
increasing numbers of residents.
1
Transport infrastructure is already sufficient.
1
The area needs more development.
southeast London should have a fair share of London’s transport
infrastructure.
1
Do not use the Bakerloo line.
The Bakerloo extension will not enable as much new development as
Thameslink 2.
1
The lines we have at the moment are absolutely fine.
1
18
14
9
8
4
1
1
Other
Type of development
Location of development
The area needs the extension.
1
Increase in journey time.
1
Increase in complexity of journey.
1
Reduce comfort of commuting.
1
Will increase cost of commuting.
1
The extension will benefit commuters.
1
The extension is long overdue.
1
Oppose the extension.
1
TOTAL
54
Do not understand the question / question is worded too vaguely.
18
Not from southeast London.
The extension will not be planned until Crossrail / Thameslink / HS2 projects
wind down.
Disadvantage to hospital patients travelling to Guys Hospital and St Thomas'
Hospital directly.
2
TOTAL
22
Do not support development that benefits the better off.
3
Need more affordable housing.
3
Development will increase pressure on other resources (schools, NHS etc.).
2
Only if it is good architecture.
1
Should enhance the unique beauty of South London.
1
Need high quality / long lasting development.
1
The development should be community-focussed.
1
The development should support / enhance local facilities.
1
Oppose high-rise development.
1
Oppose high-end / luxury development.
1
Additional services should be considered for a growing population.
1
TOTAL
16
Public / green spaces should not be used for development.
6
Development should not use green space.
3
southeast London is already densely populated.
Support if development is in areas where it does not put too much strain on
the infrastructure.
1
The aim of the extension proposal should be in the main to regenerate areas
with large populace.
Camberwell / Walworth Road need development / have areas that can be
used for development.
Route
1
1
1
1
1
Not too much surface development.
1
Oppose the loss of heritage.
1
TOTAL
15
Camberwell
3
Peckham Rye / Peckham
2
The line should be extended to Streatham or West Norwood.
Old Kent Road / Camberwell / Peckham are poorly served - the line should go
to both.
2
I don’t think it should extend to Bromley.
There will be a loss of direct trains to London Bridge / Charing Cross / Cannon
Street.
1
19
1
1
Impact on existing
residents
Financing the extension
Public transport and
congestion
Economy and
regeneration
Walworth
1
Serve Bromley South instead.
1
Mainline trains have more seats than Underground trains.
1
TOTAL
Support it if the development will support / benefit current residents
(opposed to developers)
13
Concerned the initiative will price current residents out of the area.
3
The area may become unaffordable for students.
1
An increase in residents’ quality of life.
1
Existing residents should not be displaced.
1
Need reassurance that the character and community will be preserved and
enhanced by development.
1
It would be beneficial to the people already in the area.
1
TOTAL
12
Extension should be built at public expense.
1
The extension will need to be funded by tax payer money.
1
The Treasury should help to fund the project.
1
Development alone will not cover the cost of the extension.
1
Development won’t happen without the extension, the extension won’t
happen without development.
1
TOTAL
5
Developments are often car free, therefore there is an obligation to provide
high quality public transport.
1
TOTAL
1
The extension will benefit business resilience.
1
TOTAL
1
‘DON'T KNOW’ TOTAL
4
233
QUESTION 8 TOTAL
6,941
20